Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 4-7.

Upon being made king over all of Israel, and no longer just king of Judah, King David moved his capital to Jerusalem.  Of course to do so he had to first conquer Jerusalem, which had held out against the Israelites since the time of Joshua.  The other aspect of this passage, and really the entire account of David’s military career, is the way in which it both credits his military brilliance and his reliance on God’s guidance.  When the Philistines attacked him, the passage tells us that he inquired of God on how he should respond and then again when the Philistines attacked a second time.  In both cases, the writer gives me the impression that King  David made good tactical and strategic decisions because he sought and followed God’s guidance.

I want to write about King David’s two efforts to move the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.  The first time, King David gave up on bringing the Ark to Jerusalem when one of his allies was killed because he touched the Ark while trying to keep it from falling off of the cart they were transporting it on.  David became frightened and angry when this happened.  So, King David left the Ark in the care of a Philistine who had allied himself with David.  When King David was told a few months later that the man he left it with, and everything he had, had been blessed, David moved the Ark the rest of the way to Jerusalem.  This bit has always confused me, but I realized today what it tells us.  David was afraid that Uzzah had been killed because God was angry that he, David, was moving the Ark to Jerusalem.  He left the Ark with Obed-Edom as a test.  If things went badly, King David would have known to return the Ark to where it had been.  Since things went well, David chose to move the Ark the rest of the way into Jerusalem.  However, in the meantime, King David had learned that the Ark should be carried, not carted.  Using this new information King David moved the Ark into Jerusalem.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on  2 Samuel 1-3.

I am reminded of the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury, by retainers of King Henry II.  In one form or another, Henry II inquired whether someone would rid him of “this meddlesome priest,” which led four of his retainers to kill the Archbishop.  David’s actions here, and later, would mean that no one who was part of his court would think that killing his opponents would lead King David to reward them unless he had explicitly ordered it.  Perhaps the lengths David went to send this message were extreme, it is one from which rulers who wish to be godly would be wise to learn.  I am returning to this after a few hours to add something which occurred to me.  David reacted so extremely to the messenger who claimed to have killed King Saul, and later the men who killed Ish-bosheth, in part because of how brutal King Saul was.  King David reacted brutally to those who killed his opponents to communicate to everyone that he was not going to treat his opponents as brutally as King Saul had done, and at the same time he communicated that this did not make him weak.

I find the story of Abner’s attempt to come over to supporting King David interesting.  If one does not pay close enough attention, it appears as if Abner betrays Saul’s son, Ish-bosheth, because of hurt feelings.  Perhaps it was, but there was more to it than that.  After Abner reached out to King David, David responded by demanding that Michal, King Saul’s daughter who had been given to him in marriage and then, after David fled from King Saul’s attempts to kill him, to another man in marriage.  It was Ish-bosheth who gave the orders for her to be taken from her second husband and given back to David.  This tells us that if Joab had not killed Abner, Israel would have united under King David sooner, and with a greater degree of unity.

I use the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 23-24.

The compiler of this book had a few more stories about David and his mighty men which did not fit into the narrative thread along with the other stories.  I suspect that the stories about the mighty warriors who followed David included here did not have any information which would allow the writer to say, “Oh, that happened in this battle.”  So, instead of sticking them in throughout his narrative and making it appear that they occurred at a different time than they actually did, he put them here at the end.  Something similar is likely true about the story of David’s census and the plague.  The story about the census was included because it explains why David built an altar on the location where the Temple was later built.  Knowing human nature, this story was considered important to counter other stories which were probably going around that the Temple was built upon the temple of some other god, or some other story which made the Temple more holy than God.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 20-22.

After defeating Absalom, David gave the post of commander of the army to Amasa in order to get Amasa to convince the elders of Judah to make David their king once more.  Amasa had been Absalom’s commander of the army, while Joab had been David’s.  Like Joab, Amasa was a nephew to David.  Despite the fact that Amasa was his cousin, Joab killed him at the first opportunity.  After that. one of Joab’s men made clear to the army of Judah that their choice was to follow Joab, or rebel against David a second time (this time without a leader).  The story ends by showing us another time that Joab was a skilled political operative.  When Joab and the army of Judah managed to corner Sheba, Joab made it clear that he, and by implication David, would hold only Sheba responsible for the rebellion.

The rest of 2 Samuel following the account of Sheba’s rebellion contains stories about King David which the compiler wanted to relate but could not easily fit into the timeline up to that point.  I struggle with understanding what to make of the story about the Gibeonites.  On the other hand, I have always loved the images in the song which David composed when he was rescued from King Saul.  I suspect that he originally composed this song after the time where King Saul had to return to fight the Philistines when he had been on the verge of catching David and his men.  David used amazing imagery to portray the power which God has to rescue us.  David’s imagery lets us know that even if we are far from any apparent source of rescue, God can reach us even there.  Those who are faithful will discover God’s faithfulness. Those with integrity will discover God’s integrity.  Those who are pure will learn that God is pure.  But those who are crooked and deceitful will discover that God is shrewd.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 18-19.

I mentioned yesterday that the biblical account tells us that King David had some hostility towards Joab and his brother, Abishai.  The writers of those accounts seem to suggest that David’s animosity towards his nephews was justified, but do not really explain it.  However, today I noticed something I never really thought about that likely plays a role in David’s animosity towards Joab.  When one of his men reported that they had found Absalom hanging by his hair, but still alive, Joab asked why they had not killed him.  Joab said that he would have rewarded him well for doing so.  To which he replied that everyone had heard the king’s order to go easy on Absalom and he would not be willing to face the king’s wrath.  The important point made is that this man said that Joab would be among the first to abandon him when the king found out who killed his son.  So, it appears that Joab had a reputation for encouraging people to stand up for David, but, if they angered David by doing so, he would be among the first to take action against them.  If David was aware of this, and he likely was, he would likely consider it the worst sort of betrayal.

Having said that about Joab, we have the example later in this passage of Joab confronting David about his mourning the death of Absalom while his men wished to celebrate their victory.  So, we see that despite the ill will which David had for Joab, Joab looked out for what he perceived to be David’s best interest.  In this case, Joab was right.  David had selfishly put his mourning the loss of his son ahead of the needs of his men and his nation.  We can sympathize with David’s desire to mourn, but we need to recognize that by doing so he was doing more harm to himself than good.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 16-17.

The biblical accounts contain several stories which demonstrate the rift between David and his nephews, Joab and Abishai.  Yet, none of them seem to explain why David had such strong feelings against them.  This account is the first time we are told about Abishai earning David’s ire.  Joab, on the other hand, has done two things which might merit David’s ire.  The first is clear.  When David had attempted to end the civil war with Saul’s house by offering to make Abner commander of his army in place of Joab, Joab had killed Abner (Joab used the pretext that Abner had killed his brother).  The second is my supposition.  It appears that Joab had championed David making Absalom his successor, and now Absalom had openly rebelled trying to claim the throne.  David may have held Joab’s earlier championing of Absalom against him at this point.  Yet, Joab had not joined Absalom, but instead was leading the forces defending David as he fled.

Later in the passage we see David’s strategy of sending Hushai back to Jerusalem to give Absalom bad advice paid dividends.  However, if one reads closely one realizes that the strategy worked because of Absalom’s conceit and insecurity.  Ahithophel gave Absalom two pieces of advice when Absalom arrived in Jerusalem.  Absalom eagerly took the first piece of advice which was to humiliate his father by sleeping with those of David’s concubines who David had left in Jerusalem to maintain the palace.  However, instead of taking the second piece of advice, which was to send Ahithophel with a large troop of soldiers to pursue David immediately, Absalom chose to ask a second opinion of Hushai.  Hushai played on Absalom’s insecurity and arrogance.  First, Hushai played up David’s reputation as both a warrior and a general (a reputation which David had earned, but which he was probably no longer able to live up to) by suggesting that David would be able to defeat the force sent after him.  Second, Hushai played to Absalom’s arrogance by suggesting that if Absalom led an overwhelming army to defeat David, Absalom would gain the reputation of being the general who defeated David.

As a side note I want to point out that Ahithophel’s actions after his advice about pursuing David was not followed suggests that his involvement with Absalom’s rebellion was more complicated than anything mentioned in the biblical passages.  The following morning Ahithophel left Jerusalem, returned to his home, set his affairs in order, and killed himself.  Was this because, by not taking his advice, Absalom had shown that he would not be Ahithophel’s puppet?  We have no other evidence that Ahithophel expected otherwise.  Or, was it because Ahithophel knew that Absalom was such a poor general that he would lose the war with David’s men?  Or, some other reason?

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 14-15.

This passage contains elements which have always confused me.  In particular, Joab works to get David to bring Absalom back, but then does not join Absalom in Absalom’s attempt to seize the throne.  Yet some years later, Joab joined with the attempt by Absalom’s brother to do the same thing.  I have a theory that Joab recognized that David was getting older and wanted to ensure an orderly succession by bringing Absalom back as heir to the throne.  However, Joab did not support a violent overthrow of King David.  Later, when King David was no longer able to rule, but had refused to name an heir, Joab supported David’s oldest living son taking the throne.

That being said the rest of this passage shows us why David was a successful king.  First, we have the men from Gath who want to join David in going into exile.  David tries to convince them to stay out of this dynastic dispute, but they insist, out of loyalty to David, on joining him (it would be interesting to know why these Philistines became so loyal to David).  So, we have the loyalty which David inspired in others.  Second, we have the plans which David made to keep himself informed of Absalom’s actions and to sow disruption among his advisers.  David sent the priests who chose to join him back to spy on Absalom’s councils with instructions on how they could get word to him of Absalom’s plans without anyone noticing.  Then, when one of his civilian advisers came to join him, David sent him back to offer his services to Absalom in order to give Absalom bad advice.  So, we see that King David inspired loyalty in others and knew how to use the abilities of his supporters to undermine the success of his enemies.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 12-13.

King David’s actions with Bathsheba and Uriah led directly to his son Amnon raping David’s daughter Tamar and to Absalom killing Amnon for doing so.  Which eventually led to Absalom’s revolt against King David.  However, the most interesting thing is David’s reaction to the sickness, then death, of his first son with Bathsheba.  While the boy was sick, David fasted, prayed, and mourned, begging God to restore the boy to health.  But once the boy had died, David returned to a normal life, accepting God’s actions.  We should approach life in a similar fashion, praying and fasting for the health and well-being of those who suffer, but accepting when God chooses not to grant our request.  I know that I do too much of the latter and not enough of the former.  That is, I do not spend enough time praying for healing for those around me who suffer, not that I am too accepting of God’s will (as their is no such thing as the latter).  In this trying time we are going through right now, we should be praying that God lift this from us.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 8-11.

As I read this today I was struck by a comparison between David and Uriah.  When David sent the Israelite army out to battle the Ammonites over the insult to his ambassadors, the key word is “sent”.  While his men went out to fight for his honor, King David remained behind in Jerusalem enjoying the luxuries of being king.  Meanwhile, when Uriah was sent to Jerusalem as a messenger, rather than going home to sleep in his home with his beautiful wife he spent the night in the barracks out of solidarity with his fellow soldiers who were on the battlefield.  But Uriah did not choose to forgo the comforts of home just out of solidarity with his comrades.  He also did so because the Ark of Covenant was on the battlefield.  He did so out of respect for God.  David was subject to the temptation of sinning with Bathsheba, and all that followed, because he did not do what he should have done.  If King David was going to send his men to war, he should have joined them.  Because he did not he fell prey to temptation and sinned grievously.  The same can apply to us.  If we do the things which we ought to do we will be less likely to be subject to temptation which we are unable to resist.

I am using the daily Bible reading schedule from “The Bible.net” for my daily Bible reading.

Today, I am reading and commenting on 2 Samuel 4-7.

This isn’t where I want to focus, but as I gathered my thoughts on that I was struck by the fact that the Philistines appear to have left Israel alone while David and Ishbosheth were fighting over who would be king after Saul (well technically, it was Joab and Abner who were fighting).  However, once King David consolidated power and used that power to finally conquer Jerusalem for Israel, the Philistines attacked.  This tells us that the Philistines did not want control over the land Israel controlled.  They just did not want a unified country controlling that territory.

Having said that part, what I really wanted to talk about was David bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem.  Now, I have come to the conclusion that the Ark was moved about from time to time between the time it was returned by the Philistines until David brought it to Jerusalem.  David was enthusiastic about moving it to Jerusalem, which probably explains why he did things wrong the first time he tried.  As part of the process of moving the Ark, David wanted to take part in making the offerings.  So, he dressed as a priest was supposed to and made offerings along the way.  In a way, what King David did here was similar to what King Saul did that got him into trouble with Samuel and God before Saul’s first battle against the Philistines.  There is an important difference here.  King Saul offered the sacrifice in order to consolidate his power.  King David offered sacrifices in order to express his joy at being in the presence of God.  While both King David and King Saul broke the letter of God’s law, King David kept the spirit of the law.  It doesn’t mean that we don’t have to follow God’s laws, look at what happened to Uzzah when David first tried to bring the Ark to Jerusalem.